We shouldn't hedge our bets on Trident

If you're willing to launch a first-strike nuclear attack, you're not using it as a deterrent.

If you're having to launch a retaliatory nuclear attack, it hasn't worked as a deterrent.

If the biggest threat to your country is a radicalised death cult, it won't be a deterrent.

If your enemy can now more effectively (and at vastly less expense and risk) cripple your country by unleashing hordes of teenage nerds to knock out your cyber structure, it's irrelevant as a deterrent.

The “nuclear deterrent” is nothing more than a dangerous and obscenely expensive game of poker. Against opponents who either have vastly stronger hands, or are playing a different game altogether.

Paula Kirby
Inverness

Theresa May's supine approach to Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement on curbing anthropogenic climate change is outrageous. Her explanation that she spoke to him and expressed "disappointment" at his action is totally inadequate. Apart from the fact that she should have added her signature to the protest letter sent by European leaders, she should have told Trump to his face that his action was appalling not just disappointing

Far more threatening to the survival of humankind and the rest of the biosphere than nuclear warfare is climate change. This is a global threat and could render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of the century. It is not simply, what many people may think, a welcome increase in temperature which would allow vineyards to be planted in Scotland. The threat has been known from the 1950s. It was a point driven home when I was studying for my degree in the 1960s. The reaction from governments globally was either denial or at least inertia. It took decades before attempts were made by governments to take any action but slowly things were beginning to move forward.

Then Trump, for political reasons, withdraws from the Paris agreement and May expresses her "disappointment"! I am incandescent.

Patrick Cleary
Honiton

I believe that until a Brexit deal is concluded, that we are still a part of Europe. When provided with an opportunity to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with our European counterparts in response to Donald Trump's contentious isolationist stance, I am curious to understand Theresa May's actions. To snub the very people who will decide our collective fate, is in the very least an unusual tactic. This combined with the revelation that a direct call to the White House was made instead will only fuel the perception of a leader whose fawning, obsequious demeanour in the direction of the US, provides real illumination with regard to a perceived solution post "Hard Brexit" or "no deal is better than a bad deal".

PS Could someone in "Theresa's team" please inform her that the other countries that also did not sign the letter, namely Japan and Canada, are currently not members of the EU.

Nigel Plevin
Ilminster.

Jeremy Corbyn has completely revolutionised the chances of the Labour Party, which commentators were writing off as hopelessly moribund only a few weeks ago. Some commentators (mentioning no names) are still sniping away at Corbyn and will have an awful job dealing with things if Labour do actually defeat the Tories in the election next week. So many people have branded Corbyn a “loser" – they look pretty foolish now.

For years our expectations of politicians have been disappointed, and we have come to expect lies and sleaze at every turn. Whatever people think of Jeremy Corbyn’s political outlook, the man’s essential integrity is obvious. He refuses to lie, he refuses to use personal abuse, he sticks to his principles even when confronted by very hostile questioners as he was in Friday's Question Time debate.

As for the Brexit matter, I don’t believe our European friends will see Jeremy Corbyn as a soft touch they can rip off. I think they will respect his courteous approach far more than the bombast of “bloody difficult” Theresa May. An amicable divorce is always far preferable to a bitter and rancorous one, for both parties.

I hope the country gives Corbyn’s Labour a chance, and puts a stop to the Tories’ insufferable hubris and sense of entitlement.

Penny Little
Great Haseley

In Caroline Lucas's rallying cry to fight against Trump's short-sightedness on the environment and climate change itself, it makes me yearn for more political parties such as hers to fight the good fight and push on with a greener future. More often than not, politicians are mouthpieces for their sponsors (or have become that way). My hope with more people like Caroline Lucas, the world would be in better hands, those that voice their concerns and for those around them.

David Murphy
Address supplied

Dominic Raab exhibits all the political and diplomatic nous of Tweedle Dee in his article on Brussels eating a “Lib Dem-Labour coalition for breakfast”.

In these enlightened, social media fuelled times the electorate do not like being lectured to. In cyberspace each individual has an opinion and each opinion is as valid as the next. Telling people what will happen, lecturing certainties in an uncertain world, simply alienates. We have all had enough of experts.

Especially when those experts make statements that are patently wrong. First, the economy is not as strong as Dominic suggests. All the indicators are showing a slowdown. And the electorate are very alert to bad economic news; austerity has made sure of that.

Second to suggest Messers Corbyn and Farron are sycophants and May is not is to completely ignore the handy-holdy photographs of Theresa and Donald at the White House. Both men have shown more independence of thought and resolve than May.

The combative public stance of the PM in these negotiations reveals out-of-date authoritarian thinking. The best decisions are made when everyone's needs are taken into account. Lasting agreements require consensus. That is more probably won by a person who, in the face of media and internal attack can win the hearts and minds of his party (and many undecided voters).

The idea of sending someone in to “fight our corner” in the negotiations might have made sense in the 19th Century. But it is the 21st Century and we need someone who can engage and win consensus.

Mark Grey
London, WC2